Wikipedia:Notability

WP:NOTE redirects here. You may also be looking for WP:CITE or Wikipedia:Footnotes

[[Category:Wikipedia wp:n
wp:nn
wp:notes|Notability]]

Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. These guidelines ensure that there is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about each topic.

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent. The table to the right lists further guidelines which have been accepted, or are being considered, to more precisely demonstrate the notability criteria.

The primary notability criterion

One notability criterion shared by many of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is notTemplate:Fn is that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other.

• What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc.
• "Independence" excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias.Template:Fn.
• Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.
• The "multiple" qualification is not specific as to number, and can vary depending on the reliability of the sources and the other factors of notability. For example, several newspapers all publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works, while several researchers or journalists all doing their own research on a single subject and writing their own separate articles do constitute "multiple" sources
• "Reliable", as explained in the reliable source guidelines, requires the source to have a reasonable level of editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of the topic's notability.

The subject-specific notability guidelines expand on these descriptions and include subject-specific details and interpretations. Some may also provide alternative criteria that a topic may pass in lieu of meeting this common criterion, though their spirit is still to ensure than an encyclopedic article may be written about the topic.

Dealing with non-notable topics

Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deletion. The most appropriate route depends on how the topic fails to satisfy the criteria, mainly how it fails to satisfy the primary criterion. Articles that may be non-notable can be marked with the {{notability}} template to make other editors aware of the problem.

Merging

A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because, though it may be found in published works that are not simple directories and that are from sources that are independent of the subject, it is mentioned trivially rather than being an in-depth subject of the works. Information which is given only superficial treatment or which is tangentially mentioned in discussions surrounding the actual focus of a work, is not sufficient to build a full, sourced encyclopedia article that stands independent of the main subject.

One common recommendation across all notability guidelines is not to nominate articles on such subjects for deletion but to rename, refactor, or merge them into articles with broader scopes, or into the articles that discuss the main subject, which may be created if they do not already exist.Template:Fn

For related issues, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, Wikipedia:Content forking, and Wikipedia:Summary style.

Deletion

A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Template:Fn Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all. Such articles are usually nominated for deletion, via one of the Wikipedia deletion processes.Template:Fn

For related issues see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Independent sources.

Topics that cannot be substantiated in any published works at all are simply unattributable and should be deleted.

For an indication on what is likely to be kept or deleted in a deletion debate, please see Common outcomes of deletion debates. Note however that outcomes of prior deletion debates do not supersede the primary notability criterion or the ancillary notability guidelines listed in the box above.

Rationale for requiring a level of notability

• In order to have an attributable article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources.
• In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors.
• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Notability is not subjective

Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc.

General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.

Notability is generally permanent

If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time. The reverse is not true; subjects may acquire notability as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the subject may be notable in the future.

Other factors that may influence the notability of topics in the context of Wikipedia include the fact that policy and guidelines and consensus can change over time.

Notability is not popularity

Popularity does not ipso facto render a subject notable, nor does lack of popularity render it non-notable. For example, popular Internet fads may be the subject of few or no reliable sources and fail to be notable, but a rather obscure seventeenth-century poet may have substantial coverage in reliable histories qualifying it as notable. Secondary source availability and depth of coverage, not popularity or fame, establishes notability.

See also

Essays related to notability:

• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - An essay arguing against the use of subjective criteria such as "I like it" and "I don't like it"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes - Summary of common outcomes from AfD discussions giving context to precedents.
• Wikipedia:Independent sources - An essay explaining further why independent sources are needed to write an encyclopedia article.
• User:Uncle G/On notability - An essay on the necessity of considering notability to determine inclusion or exclusion of articles. This essay is the source of the Primary Notability Criterion, described above.
• Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments - A list of arguments for both application and non-application of notability.

Notes

• Template:Fnb That is, "has been featured in several external sources" — "featured" and "several" corresponding to "non-trivial" and "multiple".
• Template:Fnb Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works should be someone else writing about the subject. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the attributability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material. Also see Wikipedia:Independent sources.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it.
• Template:Fnb Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The 1 sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) is plainly trivial.
• Template:Fnb Some examples:
  • Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) recommends that individual articles on minor characters in a work of fiction be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..." page.
  • Wikipedia:Notability (schools) recommends that individual articles on schools where there are no non-trivial published works from sources other than the school itself be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located, or into articles on the school districts, education authorities, or other umbrella school organizations as appropriate.
  • Non-prominent relatives of a famous person tend to be merged into the article on the person, and articles on persons who are only notable for being associated with a certain event tend to be merged into the main article on that event.
  • An article on a band that doesn't satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria, such as the garage band that John Kerry used to play in, is merged into John Kerry.
• Template:Fnb In other words, the only discussion of the subject is in published works from sources that are not independent of the subject, such as autobiographies.
• Template:Fnb Wikipedians have been known to frown on nominations that have been inadequately researched.